When your prints exceed 12 inches, you shouldn't be using an
s-series anyway... but look below 12 inches and both the s400 and
the s50 are the "same colour". You can't even see the difference
between two identical prints. You have more issues with vignetting
and lens abberation as well as noise than I do too.
I use an S30, which is among the lowest noise consumer digicams on the market. So much so that it even gives me ISO 800 to play with. Obviously, I care about much more than megapixel count. But you do happen to be ignoring the fact that more megapixel also allows for more cropping, not just larger prints. While I personally try to do all of my cropping
before I take the shot, this is important to a lot of people.
Once again, the difference between two cameras exhibiting a 1
megapixel threshold difference is marginal and "uindistinguishable
to the average viewer". If you're in the printing business, why
pick an S-series? If you like manual controls, why pick an
s-series with an f2.8 lens? G-series is where it's at!
The G-series lens is so full of CA at 2.0 it isn't worth it to me. I picked an S30 because I was able to get one for $318.00 back when they were selling for $400-450.00. It was the least expensive digital camera available to me at that time that offered full manual control. I don't regret the purchase one bit.
It is unless you print larger than 12 inch prints. Anyone here do
that with an s-series camera regularly? If so, why?????
I can't speak for anyone but myself. My largest regularly printed size with my S30 is 8x10.
This site describes the s50 as "Brick-like". Many posters claim
that they rarely carry it with them and some even said they had
bought s400s as a carry everywhere camera and were thinking of
selling their s50s
They apparently care more for conveneice than for picture-taking. That is their choice, and it is a perfectly reasonable one for some. Why do we all have to agree with that, though?
The s30 is a great camera. But then again, three of my fellow
designers just sold their s30s to buy two s400s and a G3. Why?
Are they Tards?
Not knowing them it would be tough to say.
The review on this site claims that "it would be difficult to
distinguish the S400 image from one taken by the G3" in relation to
standard shots by the s400.
I believe that is true. Let me point out two things. 1. "Difficult" is not "impossible". 2. standard shots are not what I care about. That G3 will certainly be able to take pics in situations where the S400 can not.
If you wanted a digital with full manual control, you should have
forked out for a G3. The difference between the G series and the
s50 is VERY considerable.
Really? You profess to know what I should've bought? At the time I bought my camera, and even now, you could not touch a G3 for anywhere near $318.00. In addition, I happen to like the size of the S-series. And while it may not be a G-series, most of the things seen as functional limitations can be overcome. For example, I can and do use add on filters/lenses (wide-angle, teleconverter, infrared, closeup, etc.). And although the S-series has no hot shoe, you can use slave flash, for example.
I get all the focus targets I aim for. I also get the right
exposures etc when needed. The camera does it all when in doubt.
Shoots through glass and lands me the right exposures. I lock the
ISO at 50 for every shot for maximum clarity. The s50 is
incapable of taking the majority of low light and natural light
shots that the G3 is famed for.
First of all, I'm not sure I agree. But I wlil say that my S30 has taken low light pics without flash in situations that few other cameras have. Sensitive CCDs are every bit as important as fast lenses.
Do not rate the s50 as being
worthy of G3/G5 status because the f2.0 lens on the G-series is the
real magic.
I never said that at all. But the CA on the fast side of that G-series lens is ridiculous, and Canon should really work on getting rid of it. Read people's posts on these forums about it. G-series owners themselves have said they don't shoot that wide due to the CA.
You simply have a point-and-shoot with an average lens
and average zoom that is identical to mine.
No, I have a camera that offers extremely low noise, full manual control, and an easy-to-swallow price.
Try manually focusing
your camera without a tripod and see what happens when your body
moves the camera out of alignment prior to the shot.
Actually, I do it all the time. If you'd like to see examples, I invite you to have a look at my web gallery. All images were taken with my S30 The link is at the bottom of this post in the signature.
If the s400 takes a pic that even a pro cannot distinguish from and
"average" one taken with a G3, then I'd say your argument: that
it's not in the same league, is baseless.
Obviously, I disagreee. As I said, the real point is that that G3 will get a shot in more challenging situations than the S400 will.
I'm NOT ragging on s50 owners but I they in turn,
should NOT rag on the s400 as being less capable, aside from the
manual selection.
The S400
is less capable, for that very reason.
Note that I HAVE recommended the s50 to others here. Don't think
I'm whining of complaining.
I'm not thinking that at all. And along those same lines, I have recommend the S400 to friends who were looking for a small, rugged point and shoot that takes some damn good quality pics. It is simply my contention that the limitations imposed by a lack of manual control place it in another category when compared to an S or G-series camera.
Regards,
--
Brian
Gallery: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/My%20Web%20Gallery/index.htm 
